Trubisky set to rewrite Bears single season record book.

[napo55]

I find it interesting that so many threads having little to do with Trubisky evolve into Trubisky threads, and this actually is a Trubisky thread and the topic has moved away from him.

So many threads degenerate into quibbling between a couple of posters who apparently believe that winning a trivial argument with an anonymous poster is important to their lives. Meanwhile most members are looking for information and news about the team and its players.

 

[remydat]

Remy is going argue the semantics over the word semantics....

Rory explained himself....he didn't argue semantics

Semantics, as it is being used here originally is the generalized urban dictionary term, not the traditional merriam-webster version.

as Rory said......disproving "getting close a bunch of times" is not arguing semantics.....its just stating a fact.

Yeah and again I don't have a problem with that. I pointed out that arguing whether 3,800 yards is close to 4,000 is in fact arguing the semantics of close. Rory had two arguments in his post.

1. The one where he contrasted Jim Everett and Randall's yards in terms of whether they were "close "to 4,000 in that particular season.

2. The one where he was discussing whether Randall got close a bunch of times over several seasons.

One can be guilty of arguing semantics as it relates to one but not as it relates to two.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Yeah and once again I was not commenting on the part of your post where you were discussing getting close a bunch of times.

I was responding to the part of your post where you argued whether 3,800 was close to 4,000. Separate part of your post and that particularly part is in fact arguing semantics.



Yes to say he came "close" is semantics in and of itself hence why when Outlaw said you would not argue the semantics of "close" and then you proceeded to argue the semantics of "close" with respect to 3,800 yards, I found it funny.

I wasn't complaining that you were arguing semantics as I have no problem with that. My comment was not about you. It was about Outlaw white knighting for you by claiming you weren't going to do something that you then did a few posts later. The actual subject of my post was Outlaw's stanning not you. Thought that was obvious when I posted a link to Eminem's Stan video.

Finally I had no reason to comment on anyone else arguing semantics because no one else had a poster claiming they weren't going to do something that by your own admission above you did.

I've gone back and re-read this thread. Nothing of what you said happened. Did I "vortex" Bort about your redundant "semantics of close"? Nope. There is nothing to "vortex". Empirically, Cunningham did not "come close a bunch of times" throwing for 4000 yards. I don't think 3808 yards is "close", either, but that is just the cherry on top of the idiocy cake.

This is the third "rehash" I've had to do for you. The "irony", again, is that more posts have been made in this thread responding to your lunacy than me 'vortexing' Bort over 3808 yards not being close to 4000. I've done this multiple times already, and this thread really isn't that long so I am completely at a loss as to why you cannot find/comprehend what I said, but here it is...again....

Cunningham was even less impressive. You say that Cunningham "got close a bunch of times including a 3800 season", when the reality was the only time Cunningham got close was his 3808 total in 1988 when he started all 16 games (a rarity for Cunningham)...and even then I'd argue falling 200 yards short of 4000 isn't "getting close" at all.

Incredible, isn't it? I even say the only time Cunningham got close was his 3808 total...but that's almost just a throwaway line because, IN AN OBVIOUSNESS THAT IS BEYOND PAINFUL, I am responding to the comment of Cunningham came close a bunch of times to throwing for 4000 yards. He did not. That is the end of discussion. Any further comment, especially from a person such as yourself who wasn't involved AND apparently is unable to grasp/find/comprehend the context of the original discussion, would just be 'semantics'.

 

[iueyedoc]

Yeah and once again I was not commenting on the part of your post where you were discussing getting close a bunch of times.


I wasn't complaining that you were arguing semantics as I have no problem with that. My comment was not about you. It was about Outlaw white knighting for you by claiming you weren't going to do something that you then did a few posts later. The actual subject of my post was Outlaw's stanning not you. Thought that was obvious when I posted a link to Eminem's Stan video.

Finally I had no reason to comment on anyone else arguing semantics because no one else had a poster claiming they weren't going to do something that by your own admission above you did.

Clearly, your whole motivation behind vortexing and derailing my thread is because you hold a grudge against me for some post years ago that you can't seem to get out of your head.


Wait...

Damn....

I got that backwards, I am the guy you claim only reacts to your posts because of some deep seeded irrational hatred.

My bad... Carry on.

 

[iueyedoc]

Lol didnt even know it was a thread started by you. Nothing you say is particularly interesting for me to comment on.

Clearly.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Whether it was a throwaway comment or not, you still argued over whether 3,808 was close to 4,000 which was my point to Outlaw.

"Whether it was a throwaway comment or not" is what blows your 'argument' out of the water, yet you simply sidestep it? HUH?

Your point was/is irrelevant to Outlaw's reference to 'vortex'. I'm still waiting for you to post evidence of me "vortexing" Bort, but I'm guessing we'll get an unprecedented triple-whammy of remydat arguing the semantics of vortexing. That will be the nadir of CCS.

Don't really care about the rest of your argument as all it takes for Outlaw to have been wrong is for you to argue the semantics of close

Again, your concept of "semantics of close" is redundant. Saying something is "close" in empirical terms is already semantics. I don't think you know what is going on in this thread.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

So many threads degenerate into quibbling between a couple of posters who apparently believe that winning a trivial argument with an anonymous poster is important to their lives. Meanwhile most members are looking for information and news about the team and its players.

Actually. not many threads do degenerate into quibbling. This is an awesome message board. Some do, but either ignore or do as I do: make the popcorn and pull up a chair and enjoy.

This one was not as funny as most others have been, but it did have amusing moments. A 5 for this one imo

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Yes saying something is close is already semantics so the minute you start engaging in such a debate you are arguing semantics. So not sure your point. You argued semantics that is all. You are now trying to get into a debate with me about the semantics of semantics. Vortex much?

That's meta though. Opposite of vortex.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Yes saying something is close is already semantics so the minute you start engaging in such a debate you are arguing semantics. So not sure your point. You argued semantics that is all.

No, I argued against semantics. Bort was the person arguing semantics, as he was the person who claimed that Cunningham was close a bunch of times of throwing for 4000 yards.

My point, which I have stated numerous times already in this thread, is that if you, remydat, want to vortex someone with your tiresome "semantics" argument, you should be jumping on Bort and not me (or Outlaw). Again, you don't seem to understand what is going on in this thread, as you appear to be well out of your comfort zone. You are unable to even identify what is "semantics" and what is a "vortex", much less argue about each. Here is my fourth (!!) rehash of what I said, to which you have yet to respond:

Cunningham was even less impressive. You say that Cunningham "got close a bunch of times including a 3800 season", when the reality was the only time Cunningham got close was his 3808 total in 1988 when he started all 16 games (a rarity for Cunningham)...and even then I'd argue falling 200 yards short of 4000 isn't "getting close" at all.

Incredible, isn't it? I even say the only time Cunningham got close was his 3808 total...but that's almost just a throwaway line because, IN AN OBVIOUSNESS THAT IS BEYOND PAINFUL, I am responding to the comment of Cunningham came close a bunch of times to throwing for 4000 yards. He did not. That is the end of discussion. Any further comment, especially from a person such as yourself who wasn't involved AND apparently is unable to grasp/find/comprehend the context of the original discussion, would just be 'semantics'.

 

[WindyCity]

We clearly need an impartial Vortex Tribunal to review this thread and make a decision in regards to Vortexing.

 

[iueyedoc]

Glad we could clear that up. I am out now. Carry on!

8 minutes later

Yes saying something is close is already semantics so the minute you start engaging in such a debate you are arguing semantics... Vortex much?

24 minutes later

Not even "close" as one can still vortex over something meta. Meta is the nature of the topic. Vortexing is one of the processes by which the topic can be debated.

10 minutes later

You also said you would argue 3800 is not close which is an argument about the semantics of close. Did I misquote the post where you said this?

Yeah, I guess you don't know what, "I am out" means.

 

[iueyedoc]

We clearly need an impartial Vortex Tribunal to review this thread and make a decision in regards to Vortexing.

Do we really? Is it not obvious what essential ingredient is always present in a CCS vortex?

 

[Rory Sparrow]

You also said you would argue 3800 is not close which is an argument about the semantics of close. Did I misquote the post where you said this?

Again, your concept of "semantics of close" is redundant. Saying something is "close" in empirical terms is already semantics. I don't think you know what is going on in this thread.

This has been a treat.

 

[iueyedoc]

Was referring to you and I not the whole thread.

Well then clearly by this post, you still don't know what "I am out" means.

 

[iueyedoc]

As I guess you dont know what it means to tell people to carry on.

And this one.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Not even "close" as one can still vortex over something meta. Meta is the nature of the topic. Vortexing is one of the processes by which the topic can be debated.

You aren't just wrong on many levels, but all the levels

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

As I guess you dont know what it means to tell people to carry on.

As he is still posting, it seems clear that he does indeed know what "carry on" means.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Yes you refuse to let me carry on like you said so I can't be out of this exchange. Please hold up your end of bargain.

Oh wait I guess I didn't know what YOU meant by carry on.

Eye doc, let Remy go. Let him carry on! Stop forcing him to read this thread and post here.

 

[iueyedoc]

Yes you refuse to let me carry on like you said so I can't be out of this exchange. Please hold up your end of bargain.

Aaaaaaaaand this one.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Aaaaaaaaand this one.

Stop taking his free will hostage!